Formation of particles

[divinum1]

In nature there are three levels of particles: primary, secondary, and tertiary. And each level is composed of two particles; one of which is semi complete in character while the other is complete in all three respects. And there are also two incomplete particles as well.

 

Primary level is composed of; photons and gravitons.

Secondary level is composed of; electrons and dielectrons.

Tertiary level is composed of; neutrons and protons.

 

The semi complete particles are; photons and electrons.

The complete particles are; gravitons and dielectrons.

The incomplete particles are; neutrons and protons.

 

Moreover there are three particles with a charge, and three without a charge (neutral).

The particles with the charge are; photons, electrons, and protons.

The neutral particles are; gravitons, dielectrons, and neutrons.

 

However the primary particles are not physical in form, whereas the other four are physical in form.

All particles cooperate with their own kind first, on one to one bases, and secondary with their own descendants. All particles are direct descendants of the particles below them, (by the smaller particles).

As for example; A graviton is is composed of two photons. An electron is composed of a multitude of gravitons. A dielectron is composed of two electrons. A neutron is composed of a multitude of dielectrons, 924 to be exact. Although there are two types of dielectrons, one type is bound to the secondary level, and as such are considered as paired electrons. While the other type that a neutron comprises of are presently known as gamma particles. They are all equal in Numbers (mass that is), but unequal in Space (in radius), and in Light (in speed), for they decrease in both quantities Space and Light by a square root of 924. For this reason, gamma particles are much more dense than the regular dielectrons in the atomic orbitals.

 

A neutron however is by far one of the most sophisticated particle of them all, even though it is an incomplete particle in character. And all of his sophistication are directly related to the division of space. Because all space regardless of how big or how small, is divided into two equal halves between two

forces. And as a result, one force itself becomes divisional in character, since it is divided throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it has to share. And as a result, all space around any mass, molecule, atom, or particle becomes 'inverted' at both ends (poles), and for this reason, a sphere is not a perfect sphere like a ball. Instead the sphere becomes warped like magnetic field lines. And for this reason, a neutron is unable to become fully complete in Numbers, but it does become complete in Space and Light. As a matter of fact, this is where and when the Light (internal motion) of the neutron turns back to Night (to darkness-to a state of non motion that is), and it therefore exhibit no charge.

But by being incomplete it is unstable by itself, with a half-life of 10.5 minutes approx. But it does become stable when it is in cooperation with another particle of its own kind, a proton that is.

But where does the proton come from?. A proton is a direct descendant of a neutron, because if a neutron does not establish a cooperation with a proton within 10.5 minutes, it then "reverses" in its action. Which means that a neutron turns into a subtraction of its Numbers (gamma particles, of which it is made). And it is very well known what happens to a neutral atom when it looses some of its electrons, it becomes ionized. And precisely the same thing happen to a neutron, because as it looses some of its gamma particles (20), it thus reactivates back to light (motion) and it becomes positive in character. And as such it can establish a cooperation with another neutron. And by being in cooperation with another neutron, the integral numbers of both particles amount to a completion of both particles, because they share their numbers (gamma particles) in their seventh layer or shell. And they thus act as if they are both complete. While the subtraction of 20 gamma particles turn into a state of radiation, which is caused due to their expansion, where they are trying to place themselves into the level that they belong, the secondary level that is. And this is how a neutron transforms into a proton.

Hence a neutron is the principal actor of all actions throughout the physical world, particularly in the stars. And because of them-their subtractions that is, a star produces a constant stream of radiation, mostly in the form of light and heat. And because of it, it provides the conditions of life, although not to all planets. But we are the lucky ones in all respects:

[imatfaal]

In nature there are three levels of particles: primary, secondary, and tertiary. And each level is composed of two particles; one of which is semi complete in character while the other is complete in all three respects. And there are also two incomplete particles as well.

 

Primary level is composed of; photons and gravitons.

Secondary level is composed of; electrons and dielectrons:

 

Says who?

 

As far as I can tell every time physics delineates an elementary particle and its relations, some bright spark comes along and uses those aforesaid relations to define another layer of more basic more fundamental particles

[Tres Juicy]

Why is this in the philosophy section?

 

Post this in the physics/quantum mechanics section and see what happens

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations

What entities are made of photons or gravitons?

What is a dielectron?

Photons have a charge?

And what about quarks?

[divinum1]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations

 

What entities are made of photons or gravitons?

 

What is a dielectron?

 

Photons have a charge?

 

And what about quarks?

 

A photon if is a single one, it is the smallest amount of energy that can individually exist (a quantum).

A graviton is composed of two such photons or quanta.

An electron is composed of a multitude of gravitons.

A dielectron is composed of two electrons, and whenever they are confined to the second level, they are known as paired electrons. But when they are bound to the third level (nuclear level that is) the same dielectrons exist in a contracted Space (in radius that is), and are therefore much smaller in volume, and as such are known as "gamma particles".

These gamma particles are the main constituents of protons and neutrons. However, these gamma particles also exist in cooperation with one another, hence they exist in pairs, just as all other particles and sub-particles do. Thus, a pair of two gamma particles constitutes one Up quark, and two Up quarks bound together represent one Down quark. And these quarks-Up quarks that is are bound into groups of sixteen. And there are seven nuclear levels that these quarks fulfill, and each level is subdivided into a specific number of regions; the total number of these regions equals 59. And only the last level (the seventh that is) is incomplete in Numbers, but complete in Space (in volume), and in Light (in motion). In fact, this is the point in time when and where the motion of all sub-particles comes to a stop-motionless. And for this reason, a neutron exhibits no charge, which clearly means that the internal motion of a particle exhibits the charge. For this reason, when two electrons establish a full cooperation with one another, their charges cancel out, and as a result, a paired unit of two electrons becomes neutral. And this apply to gamma particles, since they are composed of two electron which are in a contracted form. And when such a gamma particle comes out of a nucleus, either from a proton or neutron, they expand to their proper level which is the second level. And in the process of their expansion, they separate into two individual particles, where one becomes negative in form, while the other becomes positive in form, hence one is viewed as electron, and the other as positron. Therefore, they were not created in the process, they existed as such, but in cooperation with one another they do not exhibit their charge-like characteristics, only after their separation they do so.

Thus, a neutron or a proton is assembled by 920-924 dielectrons or gamma particles, all of which exist in groups of 16, with the exception of the last level-the seventh, which is composed of four groups of 5 gamma particles each. Therefore, by smashing a proton or a neutron, they may brake into any number of these constituents, either in groups or individuals, and by observing these sub-particles in experiments, like the one conducted in CERN, it only leads into bigger and bigger confusion. And not only that, but the same comply to electrons as well, neither are they made of a single constituent.

[swansont]

A photon if is a single one, it is the smallest amount of energy that can individually exist (a quantum).

A graviton is composed of two such photons or quanta.

An electron is composed of a multitude of gravitons.

A dielectron is composed of two electrons, and whenever they are confined to the second level, they are known as paired electrons. But when they are bound to the third level (nuclear level that is) the same dielectrons exist in a contracted Space (in radius that is), and are therefore much smaller in volume, and as such are known as "gamma particles".

 

Gravitons are uncharged and spin-2, so how do you get charged, spin 1/2 electrons from a collection of them?

 

How do two electrons form a bound state with only a repulsive force?

[divinum1]

Gravitons are uncharged and spin-2, so how do you get charged, spin 1/2 electrons from a collection of them?

 

How do two electrons form a bound state with only a repulsive force?

 

An electron is an integral unit of gravitons, and any such unit by itself acts as 1/2 of a complete reality, because due to its rotation it creates an in-equilibrium in space, which expresses itself as a charge. For this reason, only single electrons exhibit such charge, which in essence is electron's desire to establish a cooperation with another electron.

Oxygen atom for example, has 3 paired electrons, and 2 single one, and only these 2 single electrons are seeking to establish a complete equilibrium. And they do so for example when 2 Hydrogen atoms come in contact with it, since Hydrogen atoms also have a single electron, which also seeks to become complete. And so in the process they form H2O molecule.

What this clearly means, is that electrons do not repel when their equilibrium is established. But they do repel if and whenever they are approached from a wrong direction, which does not allow them to establish a cooperation. For two electrons to establish a full equilibrium between themselves, they have to be at 90 degrees, and they thus cancel their charges out, and as such, are neutral.

The repulsive force between electrons is a natural state because all electrons are naturally bound to one direction of motion (rotational motion that is). Therefore, same direction of rotational motion acts repulsive. So why do they not simply switch over an establish a full cooperation between themselves?

the reason is, because their own rotation is not oriented on their own will, but rather on the force that exist on the outside of electrons. And it is this outside force that causes all free electrons to act as repulsive.

[mississippichem]

An electron is an integral unit of gravitons, and any such unit by itself acts as 1/2 of a complete reality, because due to its rotation it creates an in-equilibrium in space, which expresses itself as a charge. For this reason, only single electrons exhibit such charge, which in essence is electron's desire to establish a cooperation with another electron.

Oxygen atom for example, has 3 paired electrons, and 2 single one, and only these 2 single electrons are seeking to establish a complete equilibrium. And they do so for example when 2 Hydrogen atoms come in contact with it, since Hydrogen atoms also have a single electron, which also seeks to become complete. And so in the process they form H2O molecule.

What this clearly means, is that electrons do not repel when their equilibrium is established. But they do repel if and whenever they are approached from a wrong direction, which does not allow them to establish a cooperation. For two electrons to establish a full equilibrium between themselves, they have to be at 90 degrees, and they thus cancel their charges out, and as such, are neutral.

The repulsive force between electrons is a natural state because all electrons are naturally bound to one direction of motion (rotational motion that is). Therefore, same direction of rotational motion acts repulsive. So why do they not simply switch over an establish a full cooperation between themselves?

the reason is, because their own rotation is not oriented on their own will, but rather on the force that exist on the outside of electrons. And it is this outside force that causes all free electrons to act as repulsive.

 

Spin pairing of electrons is irrelevant to your claim.

 

I direct you back to swansont's above question which you have not yet begun to answer.

[swansont]

What this clearly means, is that electrons do not repel when their equilibrium is established. But they do repel if and whenever they are approached from a wrong direction, which does not allow them to establish a cooperation. For two electrons to establish a full equilibrium between themselves, they have to be at 90 degrees, and they thus cancel their charges out, and as such, are neutral.

The repulsive force between electrons is a natural state because all electrons are naturally bound to one direction of motion (rotational motion that is). Therefore, same direction of rotational motion acts repulsive.

 

Please cite some research that has detected these states.

[divinum1]

Please cite some research that has detected these states.

 

Same rotation acts repulsive, because whenever they approach one another, their actions are opposite in direction, and as a result, they repel. On the other hand if two such electrons are forced together, as they may be in some experiments, then they annihilate themselves. And in this case they are perceived as electron and anti-electron. What this clearly means is that there is no such a thing as anti matter. But due to their own distraction they are perceived as such. Although naturally electrons do not act as such.

The opposite direction of rotation acts attractive, and when two such electrons approach one another, they align themselves at 90 degrees, and their charges cancel out, and this is how they establish a full cooperation with one another. And this how molecules are formed when two or more atoms are brought together. And only single electrons comply to these conditions, because a single electron has only one direction of motion (rotational motion that is), and as such, it only represents one half of a complete reality. And for this reason, only atoms with single electrons, or being deficient in them, are mostly in their outermost shell, are the ones that combine in formation of molecules.

[swansont]

Was "cite some research" not clear enough? Papers, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

How do two negative charges cancel?

 

only atoms with single electrons, or being deficient in them, are mostly in their outermost shell, are the ones that combine in formation of molecules.

 

Seriously? No compounds with constituents that are other than alkali or halogen? Carbon doesn't form compounds? Oxygen doesn't?

[divinum1]

Was "cite some research" not clear enough? Papers, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

How do two negative charges cancel?

 

 

 

Seriously? No compounds with constituents that are other than alkali or halogen? Carbon doesn't form compounds? Oxygen doesn't?

 

But they all form molecules, with the exception of noble gases, who do not have any single electrons at all.

[swansont]

But they all form molecules, with the exception of noble gases, who do not have any single electrons at all.

 

Depends on what you mean by single electrons. Currently accepted science addresses the reasons for bonds quite well, so I will ask again for evidence that backs up your claims. As is required by the rules.

[mississippichem]

But they all form molecules, with the exception of noble gases, who do not have any single electrons at all.

 

Having only one valence electron (a doublet state radical) is not a requirement to form chemical bonds. Period.

 

I don't see how this is relevant to the formation of elementary particles though. Interactions between electrons in atoms and molecules is the subject of chemistry and has almost nothing to do with the internal structure of (or lack of in mainstream physics) electrons.

Edited December 9, 2011 by mississippichem

[divinum1]

Depends on what you mean by single electrons. Currently accepted science addresses the reasons for bonds quite well, so I will ask again for evidence that backs up your claims. As is required by the rules.

 

Like I said, it is only single electrons that establish a cooperation between themselves, on one to one bases, and at 90 degrees. All of which is in agreement with currently accepted rules. However, I do not have any evidence for it. But if you look at electron configuration in atom's shells, you should easily deduce how many single electrons each atom has, and thus how many bonds it can have. Although the present electron configuration does not specify single electrons anywhere, which a great disservice to chemistry, and science as a whole.

[swansont]

Like I said, it is only single electrons that establish a cooperation between themselves, on one to one bases, and at 90 degrees. All of which is in agreement with currently accepted rules. However, I do not have any evidence for it. But if you look at electron configuration in atom's shells, you should easily deduce how many single electrons each atom has, and thus how many bonds it can have. Although the present electron configuration does not specify single electrons anywhere, which a great disservice to chemistry, and science as a whole.

 

You can't speak of electron configuration in shells, because you propose that electrons behave differently than is currently accepted, which pretty much means you are saying that the current model is wrong. So you have to start from scratch.

 

You don't have any evidence for any of this, and no proposal of how to test it.